Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 19STCV21916, Date: 2022-08-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV21916    Hearing Date: August 8, 2022    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

I.       INTRODUCTION

          On June 21, 2019, plaintiff Infinity Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendants Ruben Loera (“Loera”) and Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (“County”) (collectively, “Defendants”).  Plaintiff alleges it paid its insured, Miguel Meza (“Meza”), for property damages sustained in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on June 21, 2016, and now seeks to recover those payments from Defendants. 

          On May 24, 2022, County filed this demurrer arguing that Plaintiff’s complaint is untimely pursuant to Gov. Code, § 945.6, subd. (a)(2) and the action should have been filed by June 21, 2018.   

II.     LEGAL STANDARDS

A demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of the pleadings and will be sustained only where the pleading is defective on its face.  (City of Atascadero v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 445, 459.)  “We treat the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law.  We accept the factual allegations of the complaint as true and also consider matters which may be judicially noticed.  [Citation.]”  (Mitchell v. California Department of Public Health (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 1000, 1007; Del E. Webb Corp. v. Structural Materials Co. (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 593, 604 [“the facts alleged in the pleading are deemed to be true, however improbable they may be”].)  Allegations are to be liberally construed.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 452.)  In construing the allegations, the court is to give effect to specific factual allegations that may modify or limit inconsistent general or conclusory allegations.  (Financial Corporation of America v. Wilburn (1987) 189 Cal.App.3rd 764, 769.) 

A demurrer may be brought if insufficient facts are stated to support the cause of action asserted.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e).)  “A demurrer for uncertainty is strictly construed, even where a complaint is in some respects uncertain, because ambiguities can be clarified under modern discovery procedures.”  (Khoury v. Maly’s of California, Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.)  A demurrer for uncertainty will be sustained only where the complaint is so bad that the defendant cannot reasonably respond.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (f).)

Where the complaint contains substantial factual allegations sufficiently apprising defendant of the issues it is being asked to meet, a demurrer for uncertainty will be overruled or plaintiff will be given leave to amend.  (Williams v. Beechnut Nutrition Corp. (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 135, 139, fn. 2.)  Leave to amend must be allowed where there is a reasonable possibility of successful amendment.  (Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 348.)  The burden is on the complainant to show the Court that a pleading can be amended successfully.  (Ibid.)

III.    DISCUSSION

Meet and Confer

Before filing a demurrer, the demurring party shall meet and confer with the party who has filed the pleading and shall file a declaration detailing their meet and confer efforts.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41, subd. (a).)  The party filing the demurrer must include a supporting memorandum of points and authorities.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1113(a).)

On May 17, 2022, County’s attorney, Allen L. Thomas, spoke with Plaintiff’s attorney, Ibrahim Muhtaseb, over the telephone about the grounds for this demurrer but the parties were unable to informally resolve the matter.  The meet and confer requirement is satisfied.  

Tort Claims Act

County submits Plaintiff’s claim for damages which was presented to the County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors on January 18, 2017.  (Ex. 1.)  An amended claim was submitted on May 1, 2017.  Both claims identified the date of loss as June 21, 2016.  A notice of rejection was never served by the County, and County argues that Plaintiff had two years from the accrual of its cause of action to file its lawsuit. 

Prior to filing a suit against a public entity, a plaintiff must comply with the Government Tort Claims Act, which states, in part: “no suit for money or damages may be brought against a public entity on a cause of action for which a claim is required to be presented . . . until a written claim therefor has been presented to the public entity and has been acted upon by the board, or has been deemed to have been rejected by the board . . .”  (Gov. Code, § 945.4.)  A claim for death or injury to person or personal property shall be presented not later than six months after the accrual of the cause of action.  (Gov. Code, § 911.2, subd. (a).)  If an entity does not serve a notice of rejection informing the plaintiff that his claim has been rejected, the action must be filed within 2 years from accrual of the cause of action.  (Gov. Code, § 945.6.) 

In opposition, Plaintiff argues that its failure to timely file suit should be forgiven based on Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b) because the late filing was due to the mistake, inadvertence, or neglect of Plaintiff’s counsel, Mr. Muhtaseb.  Mr. Muhtaseb states he received the file on January 12, 2018 and filed the action on June 21, 2019 because he mistakenly believed the applicable statute of limitations was Code of Civil Procedure section 338.  (Muhtaseb Decl., ¶¶ 4, 9-10.)  However, Plaintiff cannot rely on section 473 for relief from the statute of limitations.  (Castro v. Sacramento County Fire Prot. Dist. (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 927, 933.). 

Accordingly, County’s demurrer is SUSTAINED.  As Plaintiff cannot show how amendment is possible, no leave to amend is granted.

IV.    CONCLUSION

County’s demurrer to the Complaint is SUSTAINED without leave to amend.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.  If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.